Ethics is the discipline that examines one's moral standards or the moral standards of a society

A normative study is an investigation that attempts to reach normative conclusions--that is,

conclusions about what things are good or bad or about what actions are right or wrong. In
short, a normative study aims to discover what should be

A descriptive study is one that does not try to reach any conclusions about what things are
truly good or bad or right or wrong. Instead, a descriptive study attempts to describe or explain
the world without reaching any conclusions about whether the world is as it should be

Meta ethics- a type of ethics that attempts to discover the origin or cause of right and wrong.

Business ethics is a specialized study of right and wrong applied to business policies,
institutions, and behaviors.

Arguments against Business Ethics

1. The pursuit of profit will by itself ensure social responsible behavior in perfectly competitive
markets.
2. Managers are loyal agents and they should pursue the interests of their firms and should ignore
ethical considerations.
3. It is sufficient if business firms obey law.

Arguments for Business Ethics

1. Businesses cannot survive unless moral standards exist in business concerns and outside.
2. Ethical concerns are consistent with profits of businesses.
3. Analogy to Prisoners’ dilemma problem reveals that in repeated interactions, cooperation is
the best solution and ethical behavior is the best solution.
4. Most people value ethical behavior and punish business men and organizations that are not
ethical. In organizations, where people feel there is no fair play, there is more absenteeism,
avoidance of work and lack of respect. In organizations where people feel there is fair play, there
is enthusiasm, cooperation and trust

Globalization is the way that local or national ways of doing things become global, that is, done
together around the world. It is about economics or trade, technology, politics, and culture.

Ethical relativism is the theory that, because different societies have different ethical beliefs,
there
is no rational way of determining whether an action is morally right or wrong other than by
asking
whether the people of this or that society believe it to be right or wrong by
asking whether people of
a particular society believe that it is.
In fact, the multiplicity of moral codes demonstrates that there
is no one "right" answer to ethical questions. The best a company can do is follow the old adage,
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." In other words, there are no absolute moral standards.
Cultural relativism asserts that morality varies from one culture to another, since similar
practices are regarded as right in some cultures and wrong in others. However, regarding
practices as right or wrong does not necessarily make them so, nor does it exclude the
possibility of demonstrating that moral beliefs are mistaken. For this reason, cultural relativism
does not prohibit the possibility of justification. Ethical relativism, on the other hand, makes
the philosophical assertion that there is no standard of right or wrong apart from the morality of
a culture. Whatever practices a culture holds to be right is actually right for that culture. There
6
is no possibility for justification because there exists no standard outside that culture. Ethical
relativism results in an uncritical acceptance of all moral beliefs as equally valid.
Critics of ethical relativism point out that it is illogical to assume that because there is more
than one answer to an ethical question that both answers are equally correct ─ or even that
either answer is correct. They also maintain that there are more similarities than differences
even among what seem to be very divergent societies.
The late Philosopher James Rachels put the matter quite succinctly:
The fact that different societies have different moral codes proves nothing. There is also
disagreement from society to society about scientific matters: in some cultures it is believed
that the earth is flat, and evil spirits cause disease. We do not on that account conclude that
there is no truth in geography or in medicine. Instead, we conclude that in some cultures people
are better informed than in others. Similarly, disagreement in ethics might signal nothing more
than that some people are less enlightened than others. At the very least, the fact of
disagreement does not, by itself, entail that truth does not exist.
Why should we assume that, if ethical truth exists, everyone must know it?'
However, the most telling criticisms of the theory point out that it has incoherent consequences.
For example, it becomes impossible to criticize a practice of another society as long as
members of that society conform to their own standards. How could we maintain that Nazi
Germany or pre-Civil War Virginia were wrong if we were consistent relativists? There must
be criteria other than the society's own moral standards by which we can judge actions in any
particular society. Though we should not dismiss the moral beliefs of other cultures, we
likewise should not conclude that all systems of morality are equally acceptable.
Finally, new technologies developed in the closing decades of the 20th century and the opening
years of the 21st century are again transforming society and business and creating the potential
for new ethical problems. They bring with them questions of risks, which may be unpredictable
and/or irreversible. Who should decide whether the benefits of a particular technology are
worth the risks? How will victims of bad technology be compensated for their loss? How will
risk be distributed? How will privacy be maintained? How will property rights be protected?
Morality-Morality can be defined as the standards that an individual or a group has about what is
right and wrong or good and evil.

characteristics of moral standards:

1. Moral standards deal with matters which people think can seriously injure or seriously benefit
human beings.
2. Moral standards are not established or changed by political or legal authoritative bodies. The
validity of moral standards rests on the adequacy of the reasons.
3. Moral standards are preferred to other standards including even self-interest when choice is
there.
4. Moral standards are impartial. They are based on impartial reasons that an impartial observer
would accept.
5. Moral standards are associated with special emotions. When people act in violation of a moral
standard, they feel guilty, ashamed and remorseful.

Stages of Moral Development:

Lawrence Kohlberg proposed that a person’s ability to deal with moral issues develops in six
identifiable stages.
Stage 1: For child, the physical consequences determine the goodness or badness of an act.
Stage 2: Right activities are those that satisfy the needs of the child or the needs of persons he
cares about.
Stage 3: Good behavior is living up to the expectations of the group of people one loves or trusts
such as family or friends.
Stage 4: At more mature stage law is followed for determining right or wrong acts.
Stage 5: Conflicting personal views are recognized.
Stage 6: Moral principles are chosen because of their logical comprehensiveness in ethics
enquiry.

MORAL REASONING:

Moral reasoning is the process by which actions are judged with reference to moral standards. It
involves knowledge of moral standard and whether a situation has arisen wherein moral standard
needs to be applied.
Moral reasoning has to be logical. The factual evidence regarding the situation must be accurate,
relevant and complete. The set of moral standards invoked has to be consistent
 Three kinds of Issues for Business Ethics :

systemic: concerning the economic, political, and other social systems within which
businesses operate.

corporate: concerning issues & practices of a particular company

individual: concerning particular individuals within companies

A prisoners dilemma is a situation in which two parties are each faced with a choice between
two options: Either cooperate with the other party or do not cooperate

An ethical dilemma is a moral situation in which a choice has to be made between two equally
undesirable alternatives.

3 step process in Resolving an Ethical Dilemma

Step 1: Analyze The Consequences

Who will be helped by what you do?

· Who will be hurt? ·

What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about

Step 2: Analyze The Actions

Step 3: Make A Decision

Unit 2

Utilitarianism is a
general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis
of the benefits and costs they will impose on society. In any situation, the "right" action or
policy is the one that will produce the greatest net benefits or the lowest net costs (when all
alternatives have only net costs

arguments against utilitarianism

1. Comparative measures of the values things have for different people cannot be
made-we cannot get into each others' skins to measure the pleasure or pain caused.
2. Some benefits and costs are impossible to measure. How much is a human life
worth, for example?
3. The potential benefits and costs of an action cannot always be reliably predicted, so
they are also not adequately measurable.
4. It is unclear exactly what counts as a benefit or a cost. People see these things in
different ways.
5. Utilitarian measurement implies that all goods can be traded for equivalents of each
other. However, not everything has a monetary equivalen

Act utilitarianism considers only the pleasures and pains produced for those concerned in a
single case. E.g., one might ask, Would one act of cheating on one test produce more pleasure
than pain for all affected (teacher, all students in class, future employers, etc.)?

Rule utilitarianism applies the principle of utility to the rule of action involved. One determines
the balance of pleasure and pain if that rule were followed in all similar cases. For example, one
asks: If society adopted the rule that all students may cheat on exams, would this produce more
pleasure than pain for society? In a sense one asks, "What would be the consequences if
everybody does it?" Traditional moral rules such as "do not steal," "do not lie," etc. are adopted
because they produce more pleasure than pain when generally followed.

An entitlement is called a legal right

Besides negative rights, which are defined entirely in terms of the duties others have not to
interfere with you, there are also positive rights. Positive rights imply that others have a duty
not only to refrain from interference, but also to provide you with what you need to pursue your
interests. Privacy is an example of a negative right; the rights to food, life, and health care are
positive.

Deontology-the study of the nature of duty and obligation.

What Is Virtue Ethics?

Virtue ethics concentrates on forming good character and then trusting

people to do the right thing.(Aristotle)

UNIT 3
Justice- means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving
each person his or her due.
Types of Justice

Distributive justice is concerned with the fair distribution of society's benefits and
Burdens

Retributive justice refers to the just imposition of penalties and punishments

Compensatory justice is concerned with compensating people for what they lose
when harmed by others

Egalitarianism-
is the belief that all people are created equal

Political equality refers to an equal

participation in, and treatment by, the means of controlling and directing the political system.
This includes equal rights to participate in the legislative process, equal civil liberties, and
equal rights to due process

Economic equality refers to equality of income and wealth and

equality of opportunity.

Capitalists argue that a society's benefits should be distributed in proportion to what each
individual contributes to society. According to this capitalist view of justice, when people
engage in economic exchanges with each other, what a person gets out of the exchange should
be at least equal in value to what he or she contributed. Justice requires, then, that the benefits a
person receives should be proportional to the value of his or her contribution. Quite simply:
"Benefits should be distributed according to the value of the contribution the individual
makes to a society, a task, a group, or an exchange.

Socialists address this concern by stating that the benefits of a society should be distributed
according to need, and that people should contribute according to their abilities. Critics of
socialism contend that workers in this system would have no incentive to work and that the
principle would obliterate individual freedom

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which believes that a person's individual freedoms and
liberty are more important than anything else in our political or civic culture

The libertarian view of justice is markedly different, of course. Libertarians consider it wrong
to tax someone to provide benefits to someone else. No way of distributing goods can be just or
unjust apart from an individual's free choice. Robert Nozick, a leading libertarian, suggests this
principle as the basic principle of distributive justice:
"From each according to what he chooses to do, to each according to what he makes
for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do
for him and choose to give him of what they've been given previously (under this
maxim) and haven't yet expended or transferred."
"If I choose to help another, that is fine, but I should not be forced to do so." Critics of this
view point out that freedom from coercion is a value, but not necessarily the most important
value, and libertarians seem unable to prove outright that it is more important to be free than,
say, to be fed. If each person's life is valuable, it seems as if everyone should be cared for to
some extent. A second related criticism of libertarianism claims that the libertarian principle of
distributive justice will generate unjust treatment of the disadvantaged. Under the libertarian
principle, a person's share of goods will depend wholly on what the person can produce through
his or her own efforts or what others choose to give the person out of charity

John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness is an attempt to bring many of these disparate ideas
together in a comprehensive way. According to his theory, the distribution of benefits and
burdens in a society is just if:
1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with
equal liberties for all (the principle of equal liberty); and
2. Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both:
a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle), and
b) Attached to offices and positions open fairly and equally to all (the principle of
equal opportunity).
Rawls tells us that Principle 1
is supposed to take priority over Principle 2 should the two of them
ever come into conflict, and within Principle 2, Part b is supposed to take priority over Part a.
Principle 1 is called the principle of equal liberty. Essentially, it says that each citizen's
liberties must be protected from invasion by others and must be equal to those of others. These
basic liberties include the right to vote, freedom of speech and conscience and the other civil
liberties, freedom to hold personal property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest. Part of Principle
2 is called the difference principle. It assumes that a productive society will incorporate
inequalities, but it then asserts that steps must be taken to improve the position of the most
needy members of society, such as the sick and the disabled, unless such improvements would
so burden society that they make everyone, including the needy, worse off than before. Part b
of Principle 2 is called the principle of fair equality of opportunity. It says that everyone
should be given an equal opportunity to qualify for the more privileged positions in society's
institutions.
Therefore, according to Rawls, a principle is moral if it would be acceptable to a group of
rational, self-interested persons who know they will live under it themselves. This incorporates
the Kantian principles of reversibility and universalizability, and treats people as ends and not
as means. Some critics of Rawls point out, however, that just because a group of people would
be willing to live under a principle does not mean that it is morally justified

Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In general,
punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as
the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as
race. It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime,
or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured
another party.

Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their
injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted
on a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that was at stake in the brown lung hearings.
Those who testified at the hearings claimed that the owners of the cotton mills where workers
had been injured should compensate the workers whose health had been ruined by conditions at
the mills.

The veil of ignorance is the idea that when you set up the rules, you
don’t get to know beforehand where you’ll fall inside them, which is going to force
you to construct things in a way that is really balanced and fair.

Unit IV

Job Discrimination: Its Nature

Though more women and minorities are entering formerly white male-dominated jobs, they
still face discrimination. The experiment conducted by ABC shows that women and minorities
were systematically given less consideration in hiring: they received fewer job offers and less
desirable jobs than white males. Other research suggests that blacks and Hispanics were offered
jobs 50% fewer times than white males.
Discrimination in its root meaning is not at all wrong. It simply refers to the act of distinguishing
one object from another. However, in modern usage, the term refers to "wrongful
discrimination," or distinguishing among people on the basis of prejudice instead of individual
merit.
Discrimination in employment involves three basic elements:
1. It must be a decision not based on individual merit.
2. The decision must derive from racial or sexual prejudice.
3. The decision must have a harmful impact on the interest of employees.
Discriminatory acts themselves can be categorized according to the extent to which they are
intentional and institutionalized. An act may be part of the isolated behavior of a single
individual who:
1. Intentionally discriminates based on personal prejudice.
2. An act may be part of the routine, institutionalized behavior of a group.
3. The act must intentionally discriminate out of personal prejudice
4. An act may be part of the isolated behavior of a single individual who unintentionally
discriminates because he or she uncritically adopts the practices and stereotypes of his
or her society.

An act may be part of the systematic routine of a group that unintentionally discriminates
because group members uncritically incorporate the discriminatory practices of society.
Whereas in the early 1960s discrimination was generally seen an intentional and individual, by
the 1970s a shift had occurred to emphasize the effects of unintentional forms of
discrimination. A group would be guilty of discrimination if minority group representation
were not proportionate to the minority group's local availability.
Subsequently, people came to criticize this view. They argued that discrimination was the act of
individuals, that individual minority and women were its victims. The problem with this
criticism is that it is often difficult to know whether a specific individual, was discriminated
against. The only way of telling whether a process is fair or discriminatory is to see what
happens to minorities as a group. American society has gone back and forth on this issue ever
since. Many even believe that though businesses in the U.S. used to be discriminatory, they are
no longer so.
Discrimination: Its Extent
An indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate number of a certain group's
members hold less desirable positions despite their preferences and abilities. We can make
three types of comparisons to provide evidence of this type: comparisons of average benefits
given to various groups, comparisons of the proportion of a group found in the lowest levels of
the institution, and comparisons of the proportion of a group found in the most advantageous
positions in the institution. When we make these three comparisons, it seems clear that some
form of discrimination is still present in the U.S., though for some groups it is not as intense as
it used to be.
Income comparisons are the most suggestive indicators of discrimination. The income gap
between whites and blacks, counter to what many think, has not decreased (black average
family income remains about 65% that of whites). There are similar inequalities found based on
gender as well. Though the ratio between male and female earnings is getting more equal, this
is largely due not to a rise in female earnings but to a drop in, male earnings. Disparities begin
immediately after graduation; in fact, female college graduates earn about as much as male
high school graduates. In every occupational group, women earn less than men. Blacks fare a
bit better than females, but not much. For black male college graduates, the picture is better:
they now earn about what white male college graduates do.
For most other blacks, however, the picture remains grim. Lowest income group comparisons
and desirable occupation comparisons give similar results. Statistically, larger proportions of
minorities and women are poor, and larger proportions of white males have the most desirable
occupations. In fact, the more women who work in an occupation, the lower the average pay
for that job. Though perhaps some of the disparities between white males and women or
minorities can be accounted for by the preferences of the latter (who voluntarily choose to work
in the lower paying jobs), the disparities are so large that it cannot entirely be accounted for in
this way.

Discrimination: Utility, Rights, and Justice

Given the inequalities found in U.S. businesses, we must address the issue of whether these
inequalities are wrong and, if they are, how they should be changed. Arguments against
discrimination fall into three groups: utilitarian arguments, rights arguments, and justice
arguments. The utilitarian argument against discrimination maintains that society's productivity
will be highest when jobs are awarded based on competence or merit. Discrimination based on
anything else is inefficient and, therefore, counter to utility.
Utilitarian arguments have been attacked on two fronts. First, if jobs should be assigned on the
basis of job-related qualifications only so long as such assignments will advance the public
welfare, then if public welfare would be advanced to a greater degree by assigning jobs on the
basis of some factor not related to job performance, then the utilitarian would have to hold that
in those situations jobs should not be assigned on the basis of job related qualifications, but on
the basis of that other factor. Second, it might be true that society as a whole would benefit by
having some group discriminated against.
Other, non-utilitarian arguments against discrimination maintain that it is wrong because it
violates people's basic human rights. Kant, for example, says that humans should be treated as
ends in themselves and never as a means to an end. Therefore, discrimination is wrong because
it violates people's rights to be treated as equals. In addition, some Kantian thinkers argue that
discrimination is wrong because the person who discriminates would not want to see his or her
behavior universalized (at least they would not want to change places with the victim of their
own discrimination).
A third group of arguments against discrimination views it as unjust. Rawls argues that it is
unjust arbitrarily to give some people more opportunity than others. Another related argument
sees it as a form of injustice because individuals who are equal in all relevant respects cannot
be treated differently just because they differ in other, non-relevant respects. The problem with
this argument is that it is difficult to define precisely what counts as relevant and to explain
why sex and race are not relevant, but intelligence is.
Despite the difficulties with these arguments against discrimination, there are five widely
recognized categories of discriminatory practices:
1. Recruitment practices that rely on the word-of-mouth referrals of present employees
will tend to recruit only from the groups already represented.
2. Screening practices that include qualifications not relevant to a job (such as requiring a
certain level of education for very low-level jobs).
3. Promotion practices that place groups on separate tracks or that rely solely on seniority
when past discrimination has kept women or minorities out of senior positions.
4. Conditions of employment that do not award equal wages and salaries to people doing
essentially the same work
5. Discharging an employee based on race or gender, or layoff policies that rely solely on
seniority.

Women are victims of a different and troublesome type of discrimination: sexual harassment.
Generally, the guidelines against sexual harassment are clearly morally justified. However,
there are some aspects of the guidelines that must be examined. They prohibit more than just
particular acts of harassment; they also prohibit creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
working environment.
This raises some difficult questions. Are mechanics who hang pin-up calendars guilty of sexual
harassment? Though most people now say yes, there are a number of critics who say that these
kinds of environments were not intended to degrade women, and besides, women have the
power to take care of themselves. In addition, the guidelines say that verbal or physical contact
is harassment if it has the effect of unreasonably interfering with the victim's work
performance. This means, claim some critics, that sexual harassment depends on the purely
subjective judgments of the victim; what is unreasonable to one person may seem perfectly
acceptable to another.
A more serious objection to such guidelines is that they violate people's right to free speech.
However, though these objections may be valid on college campuses, they are not at all
relevant to businesses, where free discussion and examination of ideas are not the focus.
A firm can be guilty of sexual harassment even if it did not know and could not have known
that the harassment was going onindeed, even if the firm had expressly forbidden the
offensive act. Supporters of the guidelines point out that the harms caused by sexual
harassment should be considered a cost of doing business, which it is proper to internalize.
Groups other than women and racial minorities can be the victims of discrimination. The
disabled, victims of AIDS, homosexuals, and the overweight are all discriminated against.
Currently, there are no federal laws prohibiting discrimination against many of these groups.
Affirmative Action
So far, the policies discussed in this chapter are all negative, aimed at preventing further
discrimination. Affirmative action programs, in contrast, call for positive steps designed to
eliminate the effects of past discrimination. Such programs are now legally required of all firms
holding government contracts.
Affirmative action programs begin with a detailed study, a "utilization analysis" of the major
job classifications in an organization. The analysis is designed to discover whether there are
fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification than could reasonably be expected.
If the analysis shows that women or minorities are underutilized, then the firm must establish
practices to correct these deficiencies.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not been clear about the legality of affirmative action programs.
Rulings suggest significant vacillation on the issue. The main grounds for attacking them is
that, in attempting to correct the effects of past injustice, affirmative action may actually be
racially or sexually discriminatory itself.
In the face of this objection, supporters of affirmative action make two main counterarguments.
One of these is to interpret affirmative action as a form of compensation for past injuries. The

other interprets preferential treatment as an instrument for achieving social goals. The former
arguments are backward looking, focusing on the wrongness of the past; the latter are forward
looking, instrumentalist arguments focusing on what the future ought to be.
Those who see affirmative action as a form of compensation maintain that white males must
pay reparations for unjustly injuring others by discrimination in the past. The difficulty with
such arguments is that the principle of compensatory justice requires that compensation should
come only from those specific individuals who intentionally inflicted a wrong, and should be
paid only to those specific individuals who suffered that wrong. It does not require that
compensation should come from all members of a group containing some wrongdoers, nor that
compensation should go to all members of a group containing some injured parties. Many have
attempted to counter this argument by claiming that every minority living today has been
injured by discrimination and that every white male has benefited from those injuries. Whether
these arguments are successful or not is unclear.
The second way of justifying affirmative action sees it as an instrument for social change.
Based on the statistics such as those at the beginning of this chapter, such arguments maintain
that race and gender provide an indicator of need. Since reducing this need is consistent with
utilitarian principles (as it will increase total utility), affirmative action is justified.
Objections made to this argument question whether the social costs of affirmative action
outweigh their benefits. However, even more elaborate and convincing arguments for
affirmative action are made. They argue that the goal of affirmative action is social justice, and
that affirmative action is a morally legitimate means for achieving this goal.
Presently, women and minorities do not have the equal opportunity that justice demands statistics
prove this. The conscious and unconscious bias that brings this injustice about must be
neutralized, along with the competitive disadvantages with which women and minorities are
burdened. The basic end, therefore, is a more just society, and preferential treatment is a morally
legitimate means to attain this end.
However, three reasons have been advanced to show that affirmative action is not, in fact,
morally legitimate. First, it is claimed that affirmative action discriminates against white males.
However, given the definition of discrimination, because the preferential treatment is not based
on contempt of white males, it cannot be said to be the same thing as discrimination against
minorities or women.
Second, some claim that preferential treatment violates the principle of equality because it takes
into consideration race, which is an irrelevant characteristic. Defenders of affirmative action
counter by saying that sexual and racial differences are actually relevant characteristics. Third,
critics claim that affirmative action actually harms minorities by implying that they are so
inferior to white males that they need special help to succeed. This claim is countered by saying
that, though affirmative action undoubtedly has some costs, the benefits of such programs
outweigh them. Moreover, they point out that affirmative action is not based on an assumption
of white male superiority but on recognition of bias in favor of white males. Finally, they point
out that though some minorities may feel inferior because of affirmative action, many more are
made to feel inferior because of racismand besides, showing preference towards them does not
make them feel inferior. The arguments on both sides are powerful, and the debate continues.
Because of concerns raised by opponents of affirmative action, guidelines have been suggested
to ensure that its more harmful effects will be lessened. Of course, the problems encountered by

minorities differ markedly from those encountered by women. Recently, some proposals that
are more radical than affirmative action have been made to deal with sexual discrimination.
Since the jobs women have historically taken pay low wages and salaries, proponents of
comparable worth programs attempt not to place women into higher paying jobs, but to
increase the salaries of those jobs where women currently are employed.
In a comparable worth program, each job in a firm is assigned a certain number of points for
difficulty, skill requirements, experience, and other factors. Then, jobs are assumed to deserve
equal pay if they score similarly. The fundamental argument in favor of comparative worth is
the principle of justice. Opponents counter that the market is the most appropriate determining
factor of wages. If the market pays a certain job a low salary, they claim, it is because there is a
large supply of workers in that category.
In the near future, only a small proportion of new workers will be white males. Because of this
demographic trend, firms' enlightened self-interest will prompt them to give women and
minorities special consideration. If they do not accommodate themselves to these workers, they
may not be able to find the workers they need to compete in the world market

Affirmative action programs, call for positive steps designed to

eliminate the effects of past discrimination.